01Facts
The petitioner, a CISF member, sought payment of the balance 5% of HRA for periods beginning 7 June 2018, 12 May 2023 and 5 August 2023, during postings at CISF units at DMRC, Red Fort and Samadhi Sthal in New Delhi.
pp. 1–3He had not been allotted Government accommodation during the claimed periods and had received only 25% HRA, while claiming entitlement to full HRA.
pp. 1–3The respondents did not dispute the absence of accommodation or the payment of only 25% HRA.
p. 302Issues
i.1. Whether a CISF member who was not allotted Government accommodation during the relevant periods was entitled to full HRA in lieu of that accommodation
pp. 3–4, 8–9ii.2. Whether the respondents could reduce the petitioner’s HRA by 5% because of the applicable accommodation-allotment arrangements
pp. 3, 8–903Law Applied
Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 provides for accommodation for Force members and HRA in lieu of accommodation where it is unavailable; the Delhi High Court read the Rule to mean that a member who is not allotted family accommodation because of limited availability or lower seniority cannot be denied HRA.
pp. 4–7In Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, the Court held that HRA is a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, and that accommodation or HRA cannot be denied based on posting station or accommodation-allotment seniority.
pp. 2, 4–8The judgment also relied on Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar and Anand Kumar, which applied that principle, and noted the Supreme Court’s affirmance of Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar.
pp. 3, 8–9The Court further referred to the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 7 July 2017 fixing HRA percentages for Government servants in lieu of Government accommodation.
p. 904Reasoning
The petitioner’s case fell within the principle in Jaspal Singh Mann: while accommodation may be distributed according to prescribed percentages and seniority, failure to allot accommodation does not extinguish the member’s entitlement to HRA in lieu of it.
pp. 4–8Since the respondents admitted that no Government accommodation had been provided and only 25% HRA had been paid, the Court held that the 5% reduction was not legally sustainable.
pp. 8–9The subsequent Division Bench decisions and the Supreme Court’s affirmances reinforced that conclusion.
pp. 8–905Holding
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for the claimed periods and directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA within three months.
p. 9If payment was not made within that period, the petitioner would be entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum until payment.
p. 9The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
p. 9Original Court PDF
Varinder KumarvsUnion Of India And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
